Gear Acquisition Syndrome: please help!!!

[tron]

hello,

I saw you mentioned the 16-35 II. I have the first version and I am not happy with the quality in the edges and version II does not seem better in the edges in test sites too (for example photozone.de).
Also you mentioned walking in the city so how about a TS-E 24mm II or even the TS-E 17mm for something really wide? Such a lens wouldn't be useless even for traveling (for example if you visit archaeological places).

On the other side have you considered a 300mm f/4L IS ? You could be so kind and buy later a present for that lens: an EF1.4X III teleconverter

P.S I am not going to tell you about the Zeiss alternative... although their 21mm excels even in the edges....

 

[Paolo]

Thank you all, again.


JR, you say good things about the 135 but then you got the 85. How is it as walk around? I know it's heavy, but that's not a problem. Having the 70-200 f4 i am afraid that the 135 would not give me that big advantage (yes, f2 but with that focal length dof should be similar, and no IS...).


Elflord: renting might be a solution. I read somewhere of somebody that was buying a couple of lenses, trying them out and returning the one he did not like. That is also a nice move but charging a few thousand $ on my card (even for a few days) does not make me feel well...



http://www.flickr.com/photos/paolofontana/

 

[briansquibb]

Thank you all, again.

JR, you say good things about the 135 but then you got the 85. How is it as walk around? I know it's heavy, but that's not a problem. Having the 70-200 f4 i am afraid that the 135 would not give me that big advantage (yes, f2 but with that focal length dof should be similar, and no IS...).

Up the iso and the shutter speed and forget the IS

 

[KitH]

I like Tron's idea for the Zeiss 21mm, or the 24 TSE (although you're showing signs of wanting wider than 24mm)


GAS presents itself in a least two clinical forms;-

a) the visual form, where general principle aims to increase the range of ways you can make pictures.

Healthy GAS manifests by looking at pics and thinking, "I wish... it was closer / wider / better lit / more dramatic / ...

Think about where there's a limit and then push it. Which limits interest you? bright? dark? big? small? fast? slow? hot? cold? steep? deep? crowded? empty?

Combining photography with something else is rewarding, I mixed photography with abseiling. That was a lot of fun, Could do plant macrophotography already, but doing it on a rock wall was something else.

What about an external battery pack so you can keep going into the minus temperatures?

Or how about an underwater housing? for the 5D if you're feeling brave, a used one for the 40D otherwise. I found a couple of Nikonos V worked wonders and opened up a whole new class of deeply satisfying gadgets too.

Then, when you find which limit to push, the more specialised gear will suggest itself.

b) The other sort of GAS is the tactile form.

This is the more insidious version and is only satiated by many hours spent handling the finest precision engineering achievable with known technologies; ideally metal, smooth and with every movement beautifully damped. This gets financially dangerous and is a fundamental design parameter of cine equipment. As I'm not sure which GAS type you are, a Zeiss product would probably satisfy either.

 

[Bob Howland]

When you visualize a picture that you really want to get, but can't because getting it requires equipment that you don't own, then it isn't gear acquisition syndrome when you buy that equipment. This isn't guaranteed to slow down your purchasing rate, but it'll make it marginally more rational. I own 17 lenses, which sounds excessive, but I can tell the specific photographic problem that each one solved.

 

[Loswr]

Flake, I thought about a flash but i am not convinced. I tend to prefer natural light and i guess i need to learn how to take good photos with natural light before moving to a flash.

I'll second the flash idea. Natural light is great, and I prefer it too. But very dim light is 'natural' and not conducive to good indoor shots. Likewise, outdoor shots in daytime can often benefit from a subtle fill light, from a diffused flash. The point is to learn to control the light. Note that it doesn't have to be a flash - if you're shooting outdoors, consider a reflector to fill in the shadows.

JR, you say good things about the 135 but then you got the 85. How is it as walk around? I know it's heavy, but that's not a problem.

I don't care for my 85mm f/1.2L II as a walkaround lens. The weight isn't the issue, for me it's the slow AF on the 85L. Fine for portraits, not so good for everyday shooting.

Having the 70-200 f4 i am afraid that the 135 would not give me that big advantage (yes, f2 but with that focal length dof should be similar, and no IS...).

Not even close. Aperture controls DoF, for all practical purposes. There's a big difference between f/4 and f/2. For example, 135mm f/4 at 3 m has a DoF of 11 cm, while 135mm f/2 at 3 m has a DoF of 6 cm, a little more than half the depth of f/4.

Elflord: renting might be a solution.

I think that if you need a lens for a specific, short-term purpose, e.g. a supertele for a safari, renting makes sense. I'm not a fan of renting a lens just to try it out - IMO, it's a waste of money that could otherwise be put toward purchase. If I'm not sure about a choice, I buy used at a low enough price that I can re-sell with no loss. That requires some patience, but that's fine - because that's only for 'wants', since if it's a need, you know what that is and you just buy it new.

 

[JR]

Paolo, the 85mm is ok for a walk around and certainly can do the job (I use it from time to time), but as Neuro pointed out because its AF is not the fastest, I find the 135L f2 to be a better choice, and its a bit lighter which is always a plus for me anyway.

It is true that your 70-200 f4 has similar weight and can serve you well to walk around,but the 135 is a very different beast and am sure you would find it different from your zoom. The f2 for me does make a big difference and the DoF result are amazing...

 

[Paolo]

Zeiss sounds like a good prescription for my problems but I am concerned about manual focus. I could try switch off AF on what I have and see out it goes.


Otherwise, it seems that 85 1.2 is not the best for walkaround due to slow af. So, since i don't make money shooting portraits (for what it matters, not even shooting anything else), it's probably not the best option for me. 85 1.8, maybe. 135 f2 could be a good....or, again, go wider with 16-35. eh.... :-\


Thank you all!



http://www.flickr.com/photos/paolofontana/

 

[Rocky]

Zeiss sounds like a good prescription for my problems but I am concerned about manual focus. I could try switch off AF on what I have and see out it goes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paolofontana/

Switch off AF on a af camera with AF lens witll not give you the same feel as using manual focusing lens. The focusing adjustment is too gross on the AF lens.

 

[Blaze]

The AF on the 85mm f/1.2 L II really isn't that slow (it's significantly faster than the mark I version). Unless you are shooting kids or sports or something else fast moving, I don't really the the AF would be a problem.

 

[tron]

Paolo, I do have both the Zeiss 21mm and the TS-E 24mm II that's why I suggested them. I got first the Zeiss and one and a half year later the TS-E (about 2 months ago).
I can assure you that manual focus on the 21mm Zeiss is easy and enjoyable. It is very smooth, plus you have focus confirmation. And the depth of field can be forgiving in such a wide angle lens. Another good thing is that it is easy to focus at infinity (I have used it for astrophotography).
So, if you need an ultra wide lens mostly for landscapes you can't go wrong with Zeiss.
On the other hand if you plan to shoot buildings then a TS-E lens is a much better choice (although still a manual focus one...).

 

[elflord]

I'm not a fan of renting a lens just to try it out - IMO, it's a waste of money that could otherwise be put toward purchase. If I'm not sure about a choice, I buy used at a low enough price that I can re-sell with no loss. That requires some patience, but that's fine - because that's only for 'wants', since if it's a need, you know what that is and you just buy it new.

When you buy and sell used, there are shipping costs, possibly transaction fees (e.g. paypal) and some risk associated with each transaction. Depending on where you list when you resell, there may be additional listing fees. Then there's the initial inconvenience of having to sell it. A four day rental from lensrentals is in the same ballpark price wise as paypal transaction fees + shipping.

So renting actually makes quite a lot of sense at least from a cash flow perspective

 

[niccyboy]

I'm not a fan of renting a lens just to try it out - IMO, it's a waste of money that could otherwise be put toward purchase. If I'm not sure about a choice, I buy used at a low enough price that I can re-sell with no loss. That requires some patience, but that's fine - because that's only for 'wants', since if it's a need, you know what that is and you just buy it new.

When you buy and sell used, there are shipping costs, possibly transaction fees (e.g. paypal) and some risk associated with each transaction. Depending on where you list when you resell, there may be additional listing fees. Then there's the initial inconvenience of having to sell it. A four day rental from lensrentals is in the same ballpark price wise as paypal transaction fees + shipping.

So renting actually makes quite a lot of sense at least from a cash flow perspective

But those costs are in the process of PURCHASING the lens that you then own. As opposed to renting where you will not own it. For a large prime i see the merit in hiring. for anything less that 1500 i don't see the point

 

[JackSw1ss]

Zeiss sounds like a good prescription for my problems but I am concerned about manual focus. I could try switch off AF on what I have and see out it goes.


Otherwise, it seems that 85 1.2 is not the best for walkaround due to slow af. So, since i don't make money shooting portraits (for what it matters, not even shooting anything else), it's probably not the best option for me. 85 1.8, maybe. 135 f2 could be a good....or, again, go wider with 16-35. eh.... :-\


Thank you all!

Ciao Paolo, (sono Giacomo che ti ha aggiunto qlc giorno fa in flickr)

LOL I feel your pain...there's too many stuff to buy around eheh.
For me this pathology is easy to cure because when I dunno what to buy camera-wise I just purchase something flash related for my strobes. But having studio strobes is easy because there's ton of accessories to buy for them LOL.

As far as your "problem" goes, I agree with some others who said "try to look at your most used FL's".
When last June I completed my "holy trinity" though every update from there now is based on upgrading the most used FL, which are already covered, getting the best lens around. So for instance, conssider the 50mm. It's already covered by the 24-70 (and 24-105 LOOOOL), so what's the next upgrade for it?
well, 50 1.4 or 50 1.2....which brand is up to you. I personally opted for the 50 1.4 because of pockability and I'm considering also the 1.2 for bokeh porn (yes I'm a freakin mentally instable for 50mm FL ahaha)

when the trinity was not completed yet, the problem was different, I tried to cover the common and large FL range the sooner possible. So last lens I bought (apart the 50 1.4) was the 16.35...My widest FL was 24mm so it was an obliged step to do. 17-40 or 16-35?!?I went with the heart and choose by feeling and now it's my most used lens, always on my camera.

Cheers and hope it doesn't brings even more confusion ehehe

 

[Loswr]

I'm not a fan of renting a lens just to try it out - IMO, it's a waste of money that could otherwise be put toward purchase. If I'm not sure about a choice, I buy used at a low enough price that I can re-sell with no loss. That requires some patience, but that's fine - because that's only for 'wants', since if it's a need, you know what that is and you just buy it new.

When you buy and sell used, there are shipping costs, possibly transaction fees (e.g. paypal) and some risk associated with each transaction. Depending on where you list when you resell, there may be additional listing fees. Then there's the initial inconvenience of having to sell it. A four day rental from lensrentals is in the same ballpark price wise as paypal transaction fees + shipping.

So renting actually makes quite a lot of sense at least from a cash flow perspective

Not for me. I buy and sell only on Craigslist. When selling, it's just a 5-min walk to a Starbucks near work (although maybe I should count the grande mocha as a transaction fee?). Transactions are cash, and the lens/etc. can be tested before purchase.

The most 'loss' associated with any of my purchases was about $15 in gas on a not-so-local lens purchase. That was for a pristine 300mm f/4L IS for $700. Incidentally, when I sold that lens, I ended up with enough net profit to have paid for renting it for more than a month. Seem pretty sensible from a cash flow perspective?

 

[elflord]

Not for me. I buy and sell only on Craigslist. When selling, it's just a 5-min walk to a Starbucks near work (although maybe I should count the grande mocha as a transaction fee?). Transactions are cash, and the lens/etc. can be tested before purchase.

Sounds great, but depending on where you live, it might be some time before the item you want is available and when it is, there is no guarantee that the list price will be reasonable. That could be OK if you're prepared to haggle, but otherwise it isn't. It won't work very well if you're trying to compare 5 or so lenses and choose one of them.

I also had very little luck trying to sell on craigslist -- nearly all the responses were from scammers, except that there was also one low-baller.

Between dealing with scammers, low ballers, no-shows and other time wasters, craigslist transactions are only free if your time has no value.

 

[Loswr]

I buy and sell only on Craigslist.

Between dealing with scammers, low ballers, no-shows and other time wasters, craigslist transactions are only free if your time has no value.

Thanks, what a nice thing to say about the value of my time. I could counter that by saying that someone with reasonable intellgence can easily circumvent those problems which you seem to find with Craigslist (does it really take you that long to read and delete an email?). Regardless, I'm quite glad that those who actually do pay me for my time have a vastly different opinion of its value.

 

[elflord]

Between dealing with scammers, low ballers, no-shows and other time wasters, craigslist transactions are only free if your time has no value.

Thanks, what a nice thing to say about the value of my time.

You misinterpreted my comment. I am pointing out that if you do transactions on craigslist, there is a cost in time and inconvenience. If your time is valuable, this is not free. Also, I was discussing this in context of my experience using craigslist, which is the reason why renting makes sense for me. Craigslist varies greatly by locale, some areas have more active markets for camera gear than others. The inconvenience of going via CL will vary considerably by locale.

I expressed no opinion in my post about the value of your time -- that was your interpretation, and it turns out, not the correct one.

I could counter that by saying that someone with reasonable intellgence can easily circumvent those problems which you seem to find with Craigslist (does it really take you that long to read and delete an email?).

It has nothing to do with "intelligence". Some emails do merit a response (e.g. offers). Sometimes a prospective buyer might send emails back and forth and either no-show, or just not be interested in negotiating a fair price.

I suppose with some experience it may be possible to get a little faster at determining who is a time waster and who is worth responding to. But again, acquiring that experience has a cost (in time).

 

[Paolo]

A quick update: today I "had" to pass by B&H and I made I few shots with 85 1.2, 135 and 16-35. I know that what i did is very far from a real test but....
1. I found true that the 85 1.2 is slow to focus. For my needs (travel and street photography) I am afraid that it would be too slow (risk of missing good shots).
2. 135: nice, fast and sharp. Sooner or later this will come to complement (or replace?) my 70-200 f4.
3. 16-35: loved it!!!


In short: i believe i found my (temporary) medicine in option 3. Going back to the original purpose of my first post, however, I am sure this cure will only last for a while...


Cheers.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/paolofontana/

 

[wickidwombat]

Yeah I think i definately have this syndrome too, L glass is like crack for photographers i think once you are on it its impossible to stop